Jump to content

In what universe is this a goal not disallowed?


J0e Th0rnton
 Share

Recommended Posts

kings.gif

 

The rules are pretty specific here. Williams had no sight of the puck because Stalock had his legs closed. ranted Stalock didn't know where it was either, but Williams uses his stick as a ram, shoves it into Stalock's pads and physically pushes Stalock backwards in the crease.

 

In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed.
In the event that the puck is under a player in or around the crease area (deliberately or otherwise), a goal cannot be scored by pushing this player together with the puck into the goal. If applicable, the appropriate penalties will be assessed, including a penalty shot if deemed to be covered in the crease deliberately (see Rule 63 – Delaying the Game).

 

 

The Sharks imploded and they deserve to be crapped on for imploding after the backbreaking goal was allowed, but it completely changed the momentum of the game late in the 3rd period of an elimination game and ruined what was otherwise a great game.

 

I have never seen a goal allowed by spearing your stick into a goaltender to push him into the net before. EVER

 

Every Analyst, every former ref tweeting, even the LA kings announcers deemed it was horrible to allow that goal to stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wretched call. Ugh.

Does McLellan keep his job if they lose this series? I have thought all along that the Sharks have to make the conference final for it to happen. To me it is a near certainty that he is removed if they lose tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The rules are pretty specific here. Williams had no sight of the puck because Stalock had his legs closed. ranted Stalock didn't know where it was either, but Williams uses his stick as a ram, shoves it into Stalock's pads and physically pushes Stalock backwards in the crease.

 

from that angle you can't tell what Williams sees or doesn't see. 

so pick another angle or to show or lose that argument.

 

the puck comes out pretty easily even in gif slow motion, if stalock had it "locked down" then his whole business goes into the net and we never see him and the puck separate.

I feel this is far from the worst goal / no goal call of this round of playoffs, which goes to the Bolts getting ****ed on a game tying goal vs Carey Price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from that angle you can't tell what Williams sees or doesn't see. 

so pick another angle or to show or lose that argument.

 

the puck comes out pretty easily even in gif slow motion, if stalock had it "locked down" then his whole business goes into the net and we never see him and the puck separate.

I feel this is far from the worst goal / no goal call of this round of playoffs, which goes to the Bolts getting ****ed on a game tying goal vs Carey Price.

Whether the puck was locked down is irrelevant in the case of using your stick to push the goaltender in the crease.

 

In the event that the puck is under a player in or around the crease area (deliberately or otherwise), a goal cannot be scored by pushing this player together with the puck into the goal

 

Kerry Fraser ‏@kfraserthecall 22m

I would disallow Kings 2'nd goal re: 69.6. Once Stalock made initial save even though portion of puck became visible to ref from behind.

Kerry Fraser ‏@kfraserthecall 21m

Overriding factor is J. Williams did not put puck into net legally w/ stick but pushed Stalock backwards with his stick causing momentum &

Kerry Fraser ‏@kfraserthecall 20m

Resulting in the puck to cross goal line. This is no different than crashing the net.

Edited by J0e Th0rnton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNS1e6NnvCs

 

Kings announcers, agree it is obvious he shoves Stalock into the net.

For reasons unknown, they deemed it "not a reviewable play" and let the goal stand.

 

Guess that means Burns and Brown can spear shove Quick all game 7?

 

Former senior official Kerry Fraser weighs in.

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=450772

 

To simplify this play, Alex Stalock made an initial save on his knees when Robin Regehr shot the puck from the top left side faceoff circle. Stalock's lower body remained stationary inside the top right side of his goal crease after the puck was gobbled up in his pads. Referee Chris Lee attacked the net straddling the goal line with the whistle in a ready position near his mouth demonstrating some intent to blow the whistle and kill the play; that is until he saw the puck peek out from under Stalock's left skate blade and pad. The ref's body posture and head position indicates that he was intently focused on the puck from this moment forward. Freeze frame that visual picture in your mind for a second!

If in this moment, Justin Williams dove or crashed into Alex Stalock resulting in the puck entering the net, I would think most everyone would agree that "goalie interference" had been committed and the referee should disallow the goal. The exact same 'illegal' outcome was achieved when Justin Williams used his hockey stick to push Stalock within his goal crease and off his set-stationary position which caused both the puck and the goalie's left skate to cross the goal line and enter the net as demonstrated by the overhead net-cam shot.

Edited by J0e Th0rnton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@j0eThort0n

 

the puck went over the goal line separate from Stalock.  

 

the Ref on the ice blew it then a the team in Toronto blew it... 

 

when did the whistle blow ? 

how many times do we see a guy take a whack at the goalie pads.. just in case.  

 

can't find much outrage for this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@j0eThort0n

 

the puck went over the goal line separate from Stalock.  

 

the Ref on the ice blew it then a the team in Toronto blew it... 

 

when did the whistle blow ? 

how many times do we see a guy take a whack at the goalie pads.. just in case.  

 

can't find much outrage for this. 

The puck was stationary under Stalock's left skate with his front legs closed, and it is clear from the video that Williams stick pushes Stalock's pad at thigh level nowhere near the puck he cannot see without xray vision. It is illegal to shove a goaltender with your stick spear style. It is equal to running a goaltender into the net in terms of disallowing goals. Always has been. You can whack at a loose puck, but you cannot use your stick to intentionally physically propel a goaltender backwards into the net. Even Williams admitted he did not see the puck, but. his exact quote was

 

“Well, the referee didn’t blow the whistle,” Williams said. “I tipped it, and I couldn’t see it. I know the referee didn’t blow the whistle, and he seemed to be looking behind the goalie. I took a couple stabs at it and it went in.”

Only he did not take a couple of stabs. the video clearly shows a single thrusts, propelling Stalock backwards, causing the puck to go in. Textbook goaltender interference.

 

In any case, I am just venting at this point, because I know I am right. When Lee called up, toronto declared it is not reviewable instead of saying "After reviewing it". Apparently the powers that be want a game 7.

 

Every Analyst on every station is baffled by how it remained allowed. The kings own announcers declared it was horrible to allow that goal to stand. Dustin Brown even said he was surprised it stood. Freaking former referees are blogging about how disallowed it should have been.

Edited by J0e Th0rnton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@J0e Th0rnton

My wife (I love being married to a woman who loves hockey as much as she does) says that she believes that each team should be given ONE challenge each during a post season game only. Not for the regular season but for the playoffs. She has been saying this for years and while I do not know if it would have helped in this instance it might have, just as it might have helped Minnesota with the Stastny offsides the other night. The game is so fast, faster than the human eye and whatever takes the margin for error down would be a good idea.

She also says if a team challenges and loses they would get a 2 minute delay of game penalty. I like that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were all over this (and the Clippers thing) all day on NHL radio.

Unanimously (as in without exception) show hosts, former refs, former players, current players, etc. all thought it was a bad goal. Some excused Lee thinking he was so focused on the puck itself (blow it dead vs. don't blow it dead) that he just entirely missed the pitch fork on the front side.

Some wondered aloud what the hell the other ref was looking at that he didn't see it and couldn't counsel on the play.

Others mentioned that this is possibly the worst officiating tandem in the league (I know the Flyers have had significant issues with this crew).

I've seen this allowed before. It's probably the least likely reason for a goal to be disallowed (anyone remember the Martin Gerber meltdown a few years ago on a similar play and Joseph had to finish the game and shootout?). But that just can't happen.

I realize the puck was possibly loose but you can't score by pitchforking the goalie back toward the net. Call a penalty or don't, but that needs to be waived off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is... He doesn't push Stalock into the net at all, just the puck. If one stick jab is all it took to push it in then I would argue Stalock did NOT have possession. The rule you quote states pushing the player in. All he pushed in was the puck. If Stalock had possession he would have to be pushed in too, which he was not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matter of fact watching it again, Stalock clearly does NOT have the puck. Watch it squeak out between his skates BEFORE Williams stabs at it. The puck is laying there and the Sharks' defenseman sees it. He tries getting to it but Williams strikes first. Look closely and you can see the puck is loose by his left skate...

post-649-0-11883800-1398815406_thumb.jpg

Edited by Polaris922
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@j0eThort0n

 

the puck went over the goal line separate from Stalock.  

 

the Ref on the ice blew it then a the team in Toronto blew it... 

 

when did the whistle blow ? 

how many times do we see a guy take a whack at the goalie pads.. just in case.  

 

can't find much outrage for this. 

 

I'm with you on this one.  The rule is clear....pushing the goalie into the net.  Stalock is not pushed into the net. Not even close.  He's "pushed" when Williams pokes at what he thinks is a loose puck between Stalock's pads which is not a penalty.  That poke pushes Stalock back which knocks the loose puck into the net.  

 

This rule is in place to keep a team from claiming a goal was scored when - for example - the puck is under the goalie and the goalie is literally pushed into the net (i.e. - you know the puck is under the goalie and since the goalie is in the net..."goal").

 

If you watch the play real close you can see the puck is under Stalock's left skate from the get-go.  From the angle the official comes into view it's clear he (the official) can see it, too. So can the Sharks' d-man because that's exactly where he aims to try and keep the puck out of the net.

 

If Williams had physically pushed Stalock or barreled him over I'd buy the 'no goal' argument but all Williams does is something every NHL player is taught to do in that situation which is 1) play to the whistle and 2) if there is a loose puck somewhere under a goalie you are free to poke at it until that whistle blows.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matter of fact watching it again, Stalock clearly does NOT have the puck. Watch it squeak out between his skates BEFORE Williams stabs at it. The puck is laying there and the Sharks' defenseman sees it. He tries getting to it but Williams strikes first. Look closely and you can see the puck is loose by his left skate...

 

I see the same thing (see post to Mojo).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matter of fact watching it again, Stalock clearly does NOT have the puck. Watch it squeak out between his skates BEFORE Williams stabs at it. The puck is laying there and the Sharks' defenseman sees it. He tries getting to it but Williams strikes first. Look closely and you can see the puck is loose by his left skate...

I think this look does it for me. Puck was there for sure. Goalie never had it and, for once, Chris Lee was in the right spot. I hate Chris Lee and when looking at this the first time, I thought he blew the game. Watching it again and looking at @Polaris922 's zoom-in, it was the right call. The one thing I wonder about is the "intent to blow the whistle" aspect of the play as the Sharks broadcasters claimed should have been the deciding factor of the goal. Besides this one play, the Sharks just gave up after that goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with you on this one.  The rule is clear....pushing the goalie into the net.  Stalock is not pushed into the net. Not even close.  He's "pushed" when Williams pokes at what he thinks is a loose puck between Stalock's pads which is not a penalty.  That poke pushes Stalock back which knocks the loose puck into the net.  

 

This rule is in place to keep a team from claiming a goal was scored when - for example - the puck is under the goalie and the goalie is literally pushed into the net (i.e. - you know the puck is under the goalie and since the goalie is in the net..."goal").

 

If you watch the play real close you can see the puck is under Stalock's left skate from the get-go.  From the angle the official comes into view it's clear he (the official) can see it, too. So can the Sharks' d-man because that's exactly where he aims to try and keep the puck out of the net.

 

If Williams had physically pushed Stalock or barreled him over I'd buy the 'no goal' argument but all Williams does is something every NHL player is taught to do in that situation which is 1) play to the whistle and 2) if there is a loose puck somewhere under a goalie you are free to poke at it until that whistle blows.

Every analyst, former senior referee and even the kings announcers agreed it should have been no goal. All day today.

Yes, the puck is, as I said, under Stalock's left skate, but unmoving. Williams, had no vision of the puck(He said so himself), so he pitchforked a single hard thrust on Stalock's thigh to force him backwards(Which is goaltender interference, as every analyst today said). His stick at no point touched the puck that he could not see. it did not even get close to the puck, which was far back in his skate unmoving, and did not get bumped in until the thrust shoved Stalock backwards.

 

69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgment of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.

For purposes of this rule, “contact,” whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body.

69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

 

That is pretty black and white to me given the video shows him lunge his stick into the top of Stalock's pads at thigh level and shove him backwards. Stalock did not magically hover backwards and the puck was stationary until Stalock was shoved.

 

ANY contact with the goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise while the goaltender is in the crease = goaltender interference and a disallowed goal.

Edited by J0e Th0rnton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every analyst, former senior referee and even the kings announcers agreed it should have been no goal. All day today.

Yes, the puck is, as I said, under Stalock's left skate, but unmoving. Williams, had no vision of the puck(He said so himself), so he pitchforked a single hard thrust on Stalock's thigh to force him backwards(Which is goaltender interference, as every analyst today said). His stick at no point touched the puck that he could not see. it did not even get close to the puck, which was far back in his skate unmoving, and did not get bumped in until the thrust shoved Stalock backwards.

69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgment of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.

For purposes of this rule, “contact,” whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body.

69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

That is pretty black and white to me given the video shows him lunge his stick into the top of Stalock's pads at thigh level and shove him backwards. Stalock did not magically hover backwards and the puck was stationary until Stalock was shoved.

ANY contact with the goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise while the goaltender is in the crease = goaltender interference and a disallowed goal.

I know they're your team bud and a game 7 is concerning... But if you watch the video and the puck there, you can see it gliding back under Stalock. He does NOT have it pinned by his skate or anything else. I know it sucks as a Sharks fan, but they actually made the right call here. I don't care what the so called "experts" say on the bandwagon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just watched this again.  I didn't bother with the youtube in this thread because I'd seen it earlier today and saw the gif.  But I just watched the youtube clip.

 

This really isn't a pitchfork situation and he really is just poking at the puck.  Stalock is clearly moved by it, but I don't think the Sharks really have a lot to whine about here. 

 

You still have to keep playing afterward, and they folded the tents.

 

They didn't lose this game because of this goal.  They lost this game and WILL lose Game 7 because they are the Sharks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ruxpin

And where was the rally after the goal? It's like they decided to throw a tantrum instead and quit playing hockey. I like the Sharks, but that reminded me of the Pens / Flyers series a couple years ago where the Pens just quit playing hockey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think as soon as he started stabbing at the goalie, the official should have blown it dead. he wasn't stabbing at the puck, just the goalie.

 

he obviously couldn't see the puck, as he was stabbing the middle of the goalie, not where the puck was.

 

these situations are far too crucial to let a garbage play like that stand, there is no reason to stab at the goalie when you don't know

where the puck is, if he had blown it dead, there would not have been the backlash from l.a. as it would have looked like a reasonable

call by the official, but the other way around it does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think as soon as he started stabbing at the goalie, the official should have blown it dead. he wasn't stabbing at the puck, just the goalie.

he obviously couldn't see the puck, as he was stabbing the middle of the goalie, not where the puck was.

these situations are far too crucial to let a garbage play like that stand, there is no reason to stab at the goalie when you don't know

where the puck is, if he had blown it dead, there would not have been the backlash from l.a. as it would have looked like a reasonable

call by the official, but the other way around it does not.

So you want them to whistle dead a loose puck??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So you want them to whistle dead a loose puck?

 

Don't be obtuse.

 

There is a clear rule, backed up by precedent, that you can't push the puck in with the goalie.

 

The stripes blew this big time, and you know it,

 

So stop taking the piss...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't be obtuse.

 

There is a clear rule, backed up by precedent, that you can't push the puck in with the goalie.

 

The stripes blew this big time, and you know it,

 

So stop taking the piss...

People seem to be trying to take the rule literally. Like the goaltender has to be pushed past the blue line too, when the precedent for all past situations like this blow it dead the moment a goalie is pushed in the crease.

 

And the puck was stationary under Stalock and out of Williams view. This gif makes it plain as day that pushing Stalock in the crease illegally is what moved the puck in the net

850519579.gif?1398745557

Edited by J0e Th0rnton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...